Anyone who has been on even one FTX knows that. What point are you trying to make?
I think you are trying to segue this into: Since MOST soldiers don't carry handguns, no civilian would require one if/when the "militia" is called.
It's quite a silly point, fits your Sarah Brady mindset though.
A silly point??? A major point if you are looking for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if handguns are protected as "Militia-type arms" under the second amendment!
What if some liberal Supreme Court asks the same question I did? Even YOU didn't want to answer it directly (and still haven't) because you know the implication. You say they wouldn't do that? From the Federal Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982:
"Alternatively, they argue that handguns are military weapons. Our reading of Miller convinces us that it does not support either of these theories. Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261
Are you going to say its silly when those words are uttered, not by the 7th Circuit Court, but by the U.S. Supreme Court?
The Brady/communitarian mindset irrationally insists that if the U.S. Supreme Court determines/'rules' handguns are unprotected arms, -- then we the people must obey that 'rule', and surrender our 'illegal arms' to any level of government that decides to prohibit them.
Bet me --- .
"-- whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, --"